mcpField
R
reducing-entropy

reducing-entropy

github.com/softaworksDevelopment2.6k4.0k installsUpdated 34w ago
Repository

About reducing-entropy

reducing-entropy is a skill for developers that evaluates changes by their effect on the codebase’s total size. It emphasizes deletion and measuring the end state, while outlining cases where minimizing code is not appropriate.

Key features

  1. 01Prioritize the smallest final codebase
  2. 02Compare code size before and after
  3. 03Identify obsolete code to delete
  4. 04Load a reference mindset before work
  5. 05Account for framework and compliance constraints

Use cases

  1. 01Assess whether a proposed change reduces code
  2. 02Find code made unnecessary by a replacement
  3. 03Review flexibility or structure added without need
  4. 04Decide when conventions or compliance take priority

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/softaworks/agent-toolkit --skill reducing-entropy

After installing, type/reducing-entropyin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled files

References and scripts installed along with SKILL.md.

adding-reference-mindsets.md
README.md
references/
data-over-abstractions.md
design-is-taking-apart.md
expensive-to-add-later.md
simplicity-vs-easy.md

Details

From the project README

Reducing Entropy

More code begets more code. Entropy accumulates. This skill biases toward the smallest possible codebase.

Core question: "What does the codebase look like after?"

Before You Begin

Load at least one mindset from references/

  1. List the files in the reference directory
  2. Read frontmatter descriptions to pick which applies
  3. Load at least one
  4. State which you loaded and its core principle

Do not proceed until you've done this.

The Goal

The goal is less total code in the final codebase - not less code to write right now.

  • Writing 50 lines that delete 200 lines = net win
  • Keeping 14 functions to avoid writing 2 = net loss
  • "No churn" is not a goal. Less code is the goal.

Measure the end state, not the effort.

Three Questions

1. What's the smallest codebase that solves this?

Not "what's the smallest change" - what's the smallest result.

  • Could this be 2 functions instead of 14?
  • Could this be 0 functions (delete the feature)?
  • What would we delete if we did this?
2. Does the proposed change result in less total code?

Count lines before and after. If after > before, reject it.

  • "Better organized" but more code = more entropy
  • "More flexible" but more code = more entropy
  • "Cleaner separation" but more code = more entropy
3. What can we delete?

Every change is an opportunity to delete. Ask:

  • What does this make obsolete?
  • What was only needed because of what we're replacing?
  • What's the maximum we could remove?

Red Flags

  • "Keep what exists" - Status quo bias. The question is total code, not churn.
  • "This adds flexibility" - Flexibility for what? YAGNI.
  • "Better separation of concerns" - More files/functions = more code. Separation isn't free.
  • "Type safety" - Worth how many lines? Sometimes runtime checks in less code wins.
  • "Easier to understand" - 14 things are not easier than 2 things.

When This Doesn't Apply

  • The codebase is already minimal for what it does
  • You're in a framework with strong conventions (don't fight it)
  • Regulatory/compliance requirements mandate certain structures

Reference Mindsets

See references/ for philosophical grounding.

To add new mindsets, see adding-reference-mindsets.md.

Bias toward deletion. Measure the end state.

Comments

Markdown supported